First of all I must say that I didn't see the Harlin version of the film so I can't compare. Somewhere I can understand that the producers were not really happy with the work Scharder delivered. They probably expected a pure horror film with lots of physical horror, thrills and FX.
Finally what they got was a typical Scharder film (isn'that a bit normal when you hire the man as director?) about a priest having to cope with guilt and his lost in faith. Sure Scharder inserts 'supernatural' elements in it such as possession and exorcism but the horror remains psychological and becomes very rarely physical.
The describing of the psychological hell father Merit has to undergo (when he find himself in the dessert right after the second world-war which was very traumatic for him, as we see in the overwhelming first scenes) was really very strong. It gets under your skin.
Slowly the element of possession comes in (a young local boy) but Schrader remains focused on the internal Battle of father Merit. He struggles with himself, with his faith, searching for redemption: will he be strong enough to face 'the demon'? The film is very strong in depicting all of this and when inserting subtle but very convincing horror elements in to the story we know we're in for a (hopfully) strong climax.
SPOILER - But the climax is rather disappointing. At this point Scharder switches from psychological horror to physical horror (the final exorcism scene). Apparently aware that he's making a horror-film after all. I've not really a problem with the modification of psychological horror into (more mainstream) physical horror: the original Excorcist uses the same 'formula' very convincingly.
But the final exorcism scenes here aren't convincing at all, the special effects aren't believable at all, they rather look cheap and therefor this scenes really are a rupture with the rest of the film which actually looks great.
So Scharder delivers a very strong, captivating, strange and fascinating 'horror-film', cleverly building up to a climax. And there the film goes wrong. Really a pity because the film could have been a masterpiece.
Finally what they got was a typical Scharder film (isn'that a bit normal when you hire the man as director?) about a priest having to cope with guilt and his lost in faith. Sure Scharder inserts 'supernatural' elements in it such as possession and exorcism but the horror remains psychological and becomes very rarely physical.
The describing of the psychological hell father Merit has to undergo (when he find himself in the dessert right after the second world-war which was very traumatic for him, as we see in the overwhelming first scenes) was really very strong. It gets under your skin.
Slowly the element of possession comes in (a young local boy) but Schrader remains focused on the internal Battle of father Merit. He struggles with himself, with his faith, searching for redemption: will he be strong enough to face 'the demon'? The film is very strong in depicting all of this and when inserting subtle but very convincing horror elements in to the story we know we're in for a (hopfully) strong climax.
SPOILER - But the climax is rather disappointing. At this point Scharder switches from psychological horror to physical horror (the final exorcism scene). Apparently aware that he's making a horror-film after all. I've not really a problem with the modification of psychological horror into (more mainstream) physical horror: the original Excorcist uses the same 'formula' very convincingly.
But the final exorcism scenes here aren't convincing at all, the special effects aren't believable at all, they rather look cheap and therefor this scenes really are a rupture with the rest of the film which actually looks great.
So Scharder delivers a very strong, captivating, strange and fascinating 'horror-film', cleverly building up to a climax. And there the film goes wrong. Really a pity because the film could have been a masterpiece.